On 21 Aug 2013, at 10:56, Alon Lischinsky <alischinsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2013/8/21 Trevor Jenkins <trevor.jenkins at suneidesis.com> write:
>> But "subscribers" is a meaningless notion when anyone can access
>> the archives of the list without being on the circulation list. It tells
>> potential subscribers nothing. It tells current subscribers nothing.
> That's hand-waving the question away.
Appropriate metaphor given what I do.
> You don't know what exactly Ramesh intends to get out of this information, and you haven't made
> the slightest attempt to find out. What makes you so sure that your
> objections would apply?
The onus is on Ramesh to explain what his purpose was in the first place.
> In any case, I would say that the number of subscribers is an
> imperfect but useful informal proxy for readership when other
> variables are roughly comparable (e.g., one web-archived mailing list
> to another).
But we have no way of determining readership of web archives. Unless someone trawls through the web server access logs and extracts the relevant data. You might was well say that 1 is as useful an approximation for pi as any other in the calculation of ballistic trajectories.
<>< Re: deemed!